D-24: Request for an approval of MOU between M-DCPS and FIU to provide STEM Miami a Science, Technology , Engineering and Mathematics certificate program at a Master level in both science and math.
Through a partnership between M-DCPS and Florida International University, thirty full-time teachers at the K-5 and 6-8 levels will be eligible for a fifteen-credit Science, Math and Technology (STEM) program at the Master's level, where those credits would be able to be applied toward a Master degree in Curriculum and Instruction. This MOU was reached due to concern that, due to old certification requirements, some sixth grade science and math teachers were only required to have had one semester course in science or math; this could help some of those teachers sharpen their skills and broaden their knowledge, as well as learn new strategies for teaching the subject areas. Board member Dr. Marta Perez brought up concerns that perhaps the teachers needing that the most would not be the ones who would apply for it; the Superintendent responded that the district knew who they were and would target them as a first priority, but that they also hoped some high-performing teachers would also take part in the program: "We also need to give an opportunity for teachers who are exemplary teachers who want to perfect certain skill sets. It's a matter of raising the floor at the same time you raise the ceiling height, and I think you need to move both sets of teachers simultaneously."
The program is paid for through the school district's budget, not through grants.
D-24 carried unanimously. The application process for this program should be open soon.
C-30 Request School Board Approval of 14 Charter School Applications and Denial of 2 Charter School Applications
In a rare shift from the norm, an item nearly always passed on consent agenda came to the floor: the approval and denial of new charter school applications. A long list of speakers had signed up to the item, but did not take the floor to speak.
Board member Raquel Regalado brought forward a motion to defer the approval and denial of the applications until the January Board meeting: "I think that it's important for us to have pulled this item out of consent because I think a lot of people don't understand what this process is, and in committee and in other forums we have explained what this process is, and the fact that, as Dr. Perez is saying, it is very well laid-out what the applications have to have. The staff go through the applications and the recommendation is based on that. Historically, as a Board, they'd either pass it on consent or we'd approve it because we're very limited in what we can say about these applications, and although in some cases we know some of the players, the reality is that every application is different, just as every charter school is different. But given the discussion that is being had in this moment regarding charter schools, this board should defer this item till January. I think that today it would look as though we are condoning something--I think a lot of people would misunderstand this in light of the discussion that is being had in the public about charter schools. (...) I don't think the public understands that it is completely ministerial. I also think that the fact that there were so many people signed up to speak who didn't end up speaking is a little odd, and I would rather that they be given the opportunity to speak on this."
The discourse she referred to repeatedly throughout discussion of the item centered around the series of articles published this week in the Miami Herald by reporters Kathleen McGrory and Scott Hiaasen, exposing questionable bookkeeping, big profits for management companies and real estate arms of the same companies in shady deals. 14 of the charter school applications heard at Wednesday's meeting would be managed by Academica, a for-profit charter management company with its fingers in real estate as well, and with close family connections to State Rep. Erik Fresen, who also used to be a lobbyist for the company, and has introduced legislation to allow for charter expansion and easing of restrictions on zoning for charters.
Some concern was voiced by Board members that deferring the vote could put them into a position of violating statute, but School Board attorney Walter Harvey assured them that extensions could most likely be negotiated with the parties as they already had been previously, and that any risk in deferring the vote was minimal.
Board member Dr. Marta Perez seconded Regalado's motion.
After that, the debate over charter schools and the School Board's role in approving and denying their applications continued, with members making their positions clear.
Board member Carlos Curbelo opined, "I think charter schools play an important role, especially when they came on line in the late '90s and the last decade, I think they were important, because they helped hold accountable a previously unaccountable school system. What I will say is that I don't think charter schools, at least not anymore, need to be given any special advantages that are written into the law. So I think it's important for us to express our views; I think a lot of what is happening here is due to recent media stories and things circulating out there. It's important for us to separate and make sure people understand what our function is. This is a pass-through for charter schools. We are required by law to consider applications, and if they are valid, to approve them. If anyone does not like that process or is uncomfortable with that process, you have to communicate with your state legislators. They are the ones who wrote those laws and the governor at the time signed them into law. So my colleagues have a ministerial function here, and what we have here is an item, recommended by the administration, to approve charter school applications."
Indeed, Curbelo and Regalado are right on this point: while the School Board theoretically has the right to approve and deny charter school applications, the state has laid out such clear, concrete criteria for approval and denial that they are given no leeway whatsoever to use their own judgment in approving or denying applications. As long as an application meets all the state's criteria, the School Board by law has to approve the application; if they do not, the applicant may appeal to the state, incurring additional expense for the district in addition to almost certainly winning. Therefore, the School Board approving any charter school application is not a sign of approbation of the applicant in particular or charter schools in general, but simply a ministerial function over which they have no real control or authority. Regalado insisted that the one authority they had as Board members was to request more time to go through the applications more thoroughly before approving or denying them.
Board vice-chair Dr. Larry Feldman worried about a duplication of service here, as they pay personnel within the district to vet the applications and bring forward their applications; he voiced concern that any different action today could create litigation for past charters that had been denied (52 in the past year).
Board member Dr. Martin Karp did not agree with the motion to defer the vote. "I know that there's a motion out there, but in the conversation, from what I've heard, right now statutory requirements have been met; we go through this process; we've gone through it a number of times in the past; we're really looking at item C-30, which is a recommendation from the Superintendent and his staff based on statutory requirements, if statutory requirements have not been met, that's one issue. I just think it's very straightforward. As far as sending messages, or rubber-stamping or not rubber-stamping, all of that takes us away from the recommend and the vetting that staff have done. We had this introduced in our committee meeting, and when we had the committee meetings, I know there wasn't the same press coverage, but it was the same item presented in committee, and I think that helps me make up my mind to move forward with this."
Superintendent Alberto Carvalho agreed with his point: "I think Dr. Blanch was very clear when she said that these recommendations to you the Board as far as charter schools are concerned do not reflect my opinion, her opinion, or anyone else's opinion. They are a clear response to a statutory requirement for us. I think Mr. Curbelo said it well: like it, don't like it, that is the law of the land at this point. With that said, within the framework of your constitutional right, and respectful of the deliberations you have engaged just now, I will support whatever action you choose to take."
Board chair Perla Tabares Hantman questioned the motives of the move to defer the vote. "This is the law. This is not us. We accept most of the time the recommendations, so what, in reality, what are we talking about today? We're talking about today changing what we've been doing before, for whatever reasons...we've been told again this afternoon, this is the law. His staff, Dr. Blanch in this case, has vetted these applications. In two she has asked us to vote against the applications; in others she has asked us to accept them. What are we going to do today? Are we going to change what we've done since the beginning of charter schools? I would like to try to understand the reason why we're going to do that. To me, postponing it for a month is obviously not a problem, but why are we having that conversation today? In committee, nothing was said. Why are we doing it today when it wasn't done before?"
Regalado reiterated the reasons for her motion: "Again, I'm not asking to change the recommendation of staff, I'm not moving to defeat the item, I'm not making any change to the item; I'm just asking for more time. I think that given what the discourse that has occurred in the last few weeks, there are a lot of people who would like to speak on these applications. I don't think more time harms anyone. I think it gives us more time to review it personally. From a legal point of view I don't think it changes anything. We defer things all the time. From a general perspective I don't think there's anything wrong with a board member saying they want more time. I don't think it's that controversial of a request; I don't think it shakes the foundation of what we do here. I think it's in line with discourses in our community to give people time to have these discussions. I'm glad it didn't just pass in consent and we at least got to have this discourse--and it is no reflection on these particular applications. I just think there are a lot of people who have learned a lot more about charter schools and are wondering about our role in it. It's a conversation that more people will be listening to because of certain things that have occurred. What's changed is the fact that there is broader discussion on this in our community, and I just want to make sure that people understand what our role is as a board. The only power we have is to defer this item and give it more time and give people a chance to talk about it."
Holloway supported Regalado's motion and said that they should take the time to look at the applications again.
Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla did not hesitate to jump to the defense of the for-profit charter management companies lobbied for by his cronies in the state legislature. "I don't think this vote today should be viewed or indicative of where we stand on a particular application or a particular applicant, or taking a stand at any time. That's not how I view it. My position on charter schools has also been clear in the past, and it was very well-stated by board member Curbelo in that there are good charter schools, there are bad charter schools; there are good traditional public schools, there are bad traditional public schools, and I believe in competition, and I support competition. Whatever reaction some board members may have based on an article here, negative publicity there, should really be based on the academic performance of these schools, and from what I can tell most of these schools are extremely high-performing schools, and most of the applicants before us today have a track record of successful academic institutions in our school district. So the fact that we take more time today, I don't think is going to harm these applications. I don't think we're really harming any of these applicants by taking a step back and waiting till next months. When we come back I will be supporting the staff recommendation. I'll be supporting the motion to defer, but it's not based on any negative view I have of the applicants, on the contrary I have an extremely positive view of these schools." Of course you do, Renier.
He claims that reactions should be based on the academic performance of the schools alone...so conflicts of interest and improper connections with lawmakers should be of no importance in judging those schools? I think many people in the public would disagree with that.
The motion to defer the item until next month passed by five to four; the vote will be taken at the January meeting. Stay tuned!
H-8 Request that the School Board amend Board Policy to disqualify any registered lobbyist with Miami-Dade County Schools from being on the School Board Advisory Committees
While the item requested an amendment of School Board Policy to disqualify any registered lobbyist with Miami-Dade County Schools from being on the School Board Advisory Committees, Dr. Marta Perez wanted to amend the item to prohibit lobbyists from being on the Board itself. "This item doesn't go far enough. The question taxpayers and parents want answered is, where is the real influence peddling at the district? If it is wrong to have influence peddling by unpaid volunteers who are lobbyists on committees, then isn't it wrong, even worse, to have influence peddling on this very dais? Shouldn't we also ban sitting board members who are lobbyists? I agree with this item, but I think we should be sincere and lead by example, and send this to Mr. Santorino, at the county ethics commission, thereby taking it further so lobbyists cannot become elected officials while they are lobbyists, regardless of where they lobby, including anyone who is sitting on this dais. School board members should not hold the public to a higher standard than they hold themselves as elected officials, and that is what this item does. This is a huge problem. For example, when we hear the rumblings of the possible sale of our valuable land, if one of the board members working for a group wanting to buy it, then even if he decides to recuse himself, the situation creates a conflict of interest for the rest of us who have to vote as well. If I vote my conscience and it displeases the lobbyist board member, will he then retaliate? Will he have fundraisers for those who vote the way he wants them to? School board members should not hold the public to a higher standard than they hold themselves as elected officials."
Dr. Perez was striking nerves within the group. Apparently Carlos Curbelo is a registered lobbyist, as well as possibly others on the Board. Hantman stopped Perez to tell her not to cross the line and offend a colleague.
Dr. Karp questioned whether all lobbyists should be banned. "On this, it says that any individual, and I'm wondering if any should only be if there's a direct conflict of interest. For example, if someone serves on the wellness committee, but they're a lobbyist in the area of construction, why wouldn't they be able to serve on the wellness committee? When you say disqualify ANY individual who is a registered lobbyist, my concern is that you may disqualify someone who has no conflict of interest."
Curbelo agreed, adding a rebuttal to Perez's accusations: "I do think it's a good suggestion; we'd have to figure out how to write it in perhaps. If it's a subject matter completely removed from the committee they're sitting on, it may make sense. I have been totally open and transparent about my work. I have to work for a living. Yes, sometimes, some of us in our work are required to register, even if you're not lobbying, you have to register to lobby in an abundance of caution just in case you do run into an elected official, in my case a state legislator, so it's regrettable that someone would try to muddy the waters and try to personalize comments in that way, but I think a lot of us are used to it, so I'll take it in stride."
Dr. Perez voted no on H-8; every other member voted yes.
A-1: Superintendent's Announcements
Superintendent Carvalho announced that graduation rates were up district-wide: "With the 2010-2011 high school graduation rates having been announced two days ago, we can stand proudly and proclaim that these graduation rates were the highest ever in the history of our district. For the first time ever, we surpassed Broward County's performance as far as graduation is concerned, even though we are considerably poorer and more diverse than that county. We came within just two points from the statewide average for graduation; in fact, the state of Florida grew in high school graduates by one percentage point; Miami-Dade County grew by six percentage points. My theory, my suspicion, my prediction today is that next year, this time, we will meet or surpass the state's graduation rate. We stand proudly today at 78%. Four years ago we were at about 64% and, shamefully, there were a number of schools that were at 40 or 50%. Every one of those schools is at over 70% and some of the poorest schools in our community are at 80 or 85%, far exceeding the state's graduation data. I compliment the principals, I compliment the teachers."
American Senior High School (80.1%--up 6% from last year); Miami Northwestern (81%--up 9% from last year); Booker T. Washington Senior High School (80%--up 11% from last year) were recognized for beating the state average for graduation. Miami Coral Park Senior High School (88%--up 15% from last year); Miami Jackson Senior High (85%--up 17% from last year); Barbara Goleman Senior High School (85%--up 18% from last year); Norland Senior High School (83%--up 18%); G. Holmes Braddock Senior High School (91%--up 21%) were also recognized for dramatic increases. Several magnet schools also increased graduation rates to 100%: Design and Architecture High School, Young Women's Preparatory Academy; MAST Academy; New World School of the Arts.
Carvalho cautioned, "We need to recognize that the next academic year, new state requirements and the new FCAT standards are going to change the game for all of us."
Assistant Superintendent Gisela Feild explained: "We have new standards. We have a new FCAT that children participated in last year in reading and math, and with new cut scores for the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards. For the first time, our students in sixth grade will be taking the FCAT 2.0 on computer instead of paper and pencil. We also have end-of-course exams. Last year students participated on the algebra end-of-course; this year students are participating in biology and geometry, and there are some field tests in history. Forthcoming will also be civics in seventh grade. All of those exams of course happening on the computer. New FCAT cut scores were just approved or released a couple of years ago. New cut scores were put forth last week. The impact means we will have less kids proficient because the bar has been raised. But we have a new scale, and the requirements of this new scale are higher. The impact in reading in grades 3 through 7, we will have a decrease in the number of students noted as being proficient, students reading at grade level. That is the nature of the new test, which is a lot more rigorous, and the content requires more reading and more skills and a lot more preparation. Over 15% of the kids will not be proficient in third grade, which is one of our requirements for promoting, so we will see a decrease in the reading scores for elementary schools. Similar output for math in grades 3 through 8. You're looking at a 20 point loss in third grade and a 12 point loss in 8th grade. Senate Bill 1908 and 4 changed the ways high schools are being graded, changing it from solely FCAT to graduation rates and accelerated courses. For our school grade for '11-'12 we do not know what the scale will be." The legislature is adding more weight to reading. She also mentioned the school grading trigger: every timje the percentage of A or B schools reaches 75% in a current year, the minimum required points for the grades of A, B, C and D will be increased.
Superintendent Carvalho went on: "The Commissioner of Education is predicting proficiency levels and graduation rates will dip aggressively. Not because teaachers are not teaching as well as they did this year, not because kids are not learning at higher levels. Students will continue to learn at higher levels, but because the bar was set so much higher, a number of them may not in fact reach that level. We support high standards. I certainly support high standards. This pace of evolution of standards may create two things: a lack of understanding in communities on what is happening, that this is not in fact a reflection on teachers and students but a reflection of a dramatically increased standard--which we support--and second, a growing concern for how the rest of the world and other states will view Florida if from one year to the next graduation rates dip and proficiency levels decline. This is an issue we continue to have conversations about with the state of Florida, the commissioner of education, and the state Board of Education. Every time the bar has been raised, our students have been able over time to overcome that new standard. However, this is a new exam, a new test, a new standard, and a new cut score. It is the equivalent of asking our kids, who used to be able to overcome the high bar, to overcome the high bar and score a two-pointer or three-pointer at the same time."
UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner took the microphone to take the Superintendent's words to their logical conclusion: "I want to tell you that the presentation from the A items have been obviously been just totally amazing. Those of us who attended a labor symposium saw a table of just how much money was spent on the arts and those things in Dade County by comparison to the rest of the state demonstrates why we're going to be successful if we're able to keep those programs in the elementary schools, the middle schools and the high schools. That's a big if. If this last message from Gisela is not a cry for battle for the politics of 2012, I don't kinow what is. Anyone who's an educator knows that everything about education is building blocks. Changing cut scores, changing patterns, changing them all at the same time, allows no time for building. If they're predicting that things are going to be going down, if they're predicting that they're going to be screwing with the whole school system throughout the state, they're telling us in advance they're trying to destroy public education. We have an obvious, clear plan. We're showing you the plan. First they go ahead and they take away the number of courses kids can use to recovery. Well, that's going to take away all the value of adding in graduation rates to the formula to how you're going to grade a school, because kids are going to have less and less opportunity to make those courses up. Bingo, there goes your graduation rate, right there and then. They're going to change the cut scores. How are they going to change scores midstream on all these kids and expect anything but failure? They're not. They're telling you they're expecting failure. That's what they're expecting, that's what they're offering. Everyone has to vote in 2012. You have to vote your pocketbook and you have to vote to support public education."
Dr. Martin Karp inquired as to when high school grades would come out; Gisela Feild said that it probably would not be until after the winter break. He then inquired into the performance pay picture: "This whole thing will be impacted if the bar is being raised and we're going to look at significant drops in supposed student achievement. So the performance pay now being in the formula--what can we expect there and how will it impact our teachers?"
Feild replied: "It's unclear yet because the models that have been run in terms of value-added by the Florida Department of Education require three years of data, which all constituted the old FCAT. We only have one year of data for the new FCAT, which would have been last year, and now we'll have a second year. It is still unknown to us whether the state will try to extrapolate three years ago and convert to the new FCAT or use the two years, so it's very unknown, because we have no way of measuring what the data will look like because we haven't given the second year of the test."
Karp asked, "What are our efforts going to be to communicate with the teachers? This will have an impact on them as well...We've talked about reaching out to our stakeholders, which include parents and members of the community, but I think that one of our largest groups of stakeholders is our teachers and I just want to know what kind of communication we're going to have."
Carvalho insisted: "When we talk about community-wide information in this very important matter, that includes first and foremost teachers. So we're going to have face-to-face conversations; we're going to begin with our leaders, having the information trickle down from principals and assistant principals to teachers; we're going to create webcasts that can be viewed by teachers, posting them on the teacher portal; we're going to have as much direct communication with teachers as possible to have them understand how dramatic some of these changes are. The performance pay payout that was provided to teachers this year has ended. This coming year's payout is going to require a new set of negotations and that was my promise to you: that each year we would go back to the table and adjust the formula and adjust the conditions based on two things: the funding available and the conditions before us. Part of those conditions will be the new standards, will be the new cut scores, will be the new proficiency levels for teachers, so teachers will not be disadvantaged as far as this is concerned in terms of performance pay."
Dr. Mindingall inquired as to how we would be able to do everything we want to do in terms of funding.
Carvalho responded, "Right now there is one budget out there. Probably that is the high watermark budget. We ought to support it. We ought to let go of the past and support what is before us right now. And what is before us right now is a budget that departs from the trend of five years of consecutive reductions to education. So number one, we hope to God that this budget is sustained through the legislative process and recognize that there are many competing interests like health care, Medicaid, law enforcement, and transportation alike, so we ought to support that budget. In that budget there are certain earmarks categorical funding increases, for example, for reading programs, reading coaches. So we will be in real serious shape if all these requirements come in and the funding doesn't accompany them. But we have a chance right now to unify our voice behind the governor's budget. It is our best shot right now. It would still be difficult for Dr. Hinds to balance that budget because notwithstanding the increase in funding we have mounting liabilites: health care insurance and all kinds of things."
Board member Raquel Regalado pointed out that the governor's budget could still negatively impact our communities. "One of our first items today concerned our partnership with Jackson Community Health Systems. In the governor's budget, because of the changes to Medicaid, Jackson would be--the reduction would be at this point they believe a minimum of $133 million. So I get a little concerned when we're talking about town hall meetings to support this budget; I think we need to sit down and look at exactly what's being proposed and who are we being pitted against. I don't feel comfortable supporting a state budget that takes the interests of education and places them adversely against those of health care. I think there are other alternatives. Also in my simple review of the budget I don't agree with a lot of the allocations of the money, for example, I don't think we should be putting any more money in Student Success, I think there is plenty of money in Student Success program, so I think it's very early in the process. I was very happy when we were in Tallahassee to hear the governor say that he understands the concept that education is tied to job creation and that education is important. I think we're all looking forward to a Florida where education is a priority. How that exactly pans out we'll see in the next few weeks and months. But I do think we should consider the unintended consequences of a lot of hte things that are proposed in that budget."
Indeed, there are many stipulations on the monies that would be allocated under the governor's budget that would limit the district's ability to use the funding on actual instruction--in other words, that would make sure it would not be used toward improving salaries or working conditions for teachers.
Public Hearing
UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner spoke out against the unnecessary and inappropriate paperwork being foisted upon teachers, hiding under the veil of the new evaluation system: "I always like to end the year on a positive note, so let me begin with something positive. The health care subcommittee that we've been working on has been really busting it to work out as many possible details. It's been the most agonizing cooperative committee I've ever worked on in my life, and it is going to do the best it can to cut that $65 million down to something manageable; however, I don't think it is going to be something that anybody is going to like in the end. But let me end with something that's got to stop. There was a concern about the merit pay from Race to the Top and the impact of the new cut scores and all that. I'm far more concerned about the impact on the evaluations of teachers, 50% of which is based upon test scores, for many people who never give those tests and who have never taught that subject area, and I think that the absurdity is in itself by itself. But there is something else going on in a previous existence I used to be the chairperson of the Paperwork Reduction Committee. We have been receiving a nonstop barrage of inappropriate paperwork that's being assigned to teachers that do not possess the so-called FM numbers, which means they're not approved by the district for use by the schools, over and over on a daily basis, more and more of them. We're receiving reports of teachers required to teach classes during homeroom, which would be the equivalent of an extra period supplement. Many of these are being resolved. But this continuous problem has just not gone away. It says in part 7 of IPEGS, professionalism: Consistently demonstrates a high level of professionalism. Contribues to the growth of others and/or assumes a leadership role within the learning community. Above it says what's highly effective: the professional's work is exceptional in addition to meeting the standards. The words that are missing there are the standards that are in compliance with the MOU or LOU between the district and the ETO schools, the thirty targeted schools, and the contract between United Teachers of Dade and Miami-Dade County Public Schools. It is eliciting threats from people that if you do not go above and beyond the requirements of your contract, we are going to take away points from that professional section. Yes, it says you don't have to fill out these forms. Yes, but if you don't fill out these forms, you're not going to get all six of the points to be highly effective. That is totally, completely and utterly unacceptable."
Shawn Beightol took the microphone to ask the Board for a raise for teachers, bringing up again his complaints against the UTD ratification vote for the disbursement of the Race to the Top monies. "I stood here September 7 to ask you to delay the disbursement of the Race to the Top funds due to impending hearings on the validity of the ratification vote. We now have the preliminary findings that indeed the ratification votes violated Florida law. We are in a sticky situation where the results of the votes have been recommended to be reversed. If the recommendation is affirmed it could lead to issues of the inequity of the amounts of money and how they were disbursed. I would like to suggest a partial solution to the situation. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has delivered only two and a half of the six raises over the last six years that were due to the employees. We've only received one half of the raises that were due since August 2009. Your employees are being impoverished as this administration prioritizes other budget items, including software and hardware upgrades that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, for which they found creative means to fund. During the same period of time, your staff delivered educational gains that topped national averages in sciences, mathematics and reading as measured by the NAEP and as recognized by the Broad Foundation. Not once, not twice, not three times, but four times and most likely a fifth times. Your educators and support have delivered to you the honor of being Broad finalist in the same time period that they've been denied the salaries have paid your administration to negotiate and deliver. A negotiation impasse was declared during the 2010 school year over looming health care increases and continued denial of raises. May 18, a special magistrate recognizing the Miami educators' accomplishments and recognizing that they're the only group of educators in Florida without a raise in two years recommended that you give them something. Your administration filed objections to this recommendation. It is now your statutory duty to call a public hearing and decide publicly what you will do for your award-winning employees who have been denied desperately-needed raises year after year. I suggest that you announce before the holidays that you will catch your employees up for the last two raises that they've been denied. In doing this you could also account for the inequitable disbursement of Race to the Top funds and so preclude any further legal challenges to that. The governor says he will return the billion dollars to the education budget many use as an excuse to break the contract. I ask for the best holiday gift you could give to the hard-working educators who deliver national award-winning results year after year. Fulfill your word to them. It would be better to go down quietly in history as the leaders who kept their word rather than as the laters who were the first to give Race to the Top monies but the last to give their employees what was promised. Apply the same creativity to keeping your word to the employees as you've showed in implementing the SAP."
Note: November 15, attorneys for United Teachers of Dade sent communication to Chair Perla Tabares Hantman and Vice-chair Dr. Larry Feldman to correct some information from Beightol's request. The Public Employees Relations Committee (PERC) Special Magistrate recommended a modest wage increase only if no layoffs would occur during the fiscal year. The school district had already laid off a number of employees. UTD and the district instead reached a layoff protection provision which was ratified by the bargaining unit in June 2011. A PERC hearing officer has issued a preliminary order recommending that another ratification vote be held regarding that agreement, not because any improprieties were shown to have occurred during the election, but because the hearing officer disagreed with the method utilized to conduct the vote. The preliminary order is non-binding. Both UTD and M-DCPS are filing exception to the recommendation. The recommendation does not require the Board hold a public hearing on the subjects previously negotiated to announce what it will do.
